If I asked you who the world's most dangerous man was, what would you answer? Osama bin Laden? Charles Manson? Gargamel? I personally would vote for a man whose name you might not even know. A man who believes that "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person". A man who doesn't regard infants or people with severe cognitive disability as "persons" and who is convinced that killing them "very often is not wrong at all". A man who believes that "the fact that a being is a human being is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it." A man who argues that parents should be permitted to kill a baby with hemophilia if that "would lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects for a happy life." A man who believes that while some members of the human species are not persons, apes and some other members of other species are persons and, as opposed to babies and the severely disabled, should have equal rights. He wouldn't be dangerous at all if he was roaming the streets of New York City with a paper cup in hand while muttering to himself or if he was standing around a corner with unwashed stringy hair while holding up some cardboard sign. But he is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University and hence in a position where he can influence many young and not so young minds, and also minds who make the law. And he does. His name is Peter Singer. Beware of him.
(Taking Lives: Humans, by Peter Singer
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm
All Animals Are Equal, by Peter Singer
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm)
15 comments:
Interesting....
It all seems to be based on the idea that you can measure "suffering" and "quality of life" based on the degree of disability, which is wrong.
Ideas about "quality of life" don't even seem to remain the same. The things that influence my son's quality of life have much more to do with how society thinks about disability (acceptance and adaptation to it (or not here in Greece))than it does with disability itself.
And of course there are plenty of children and adults suffering and with a poor quality of life who are not disabled. How should these lives be measured?
Indeed, eugenics is a frightening prospect and especially if it seems to be subtly inserted into our culture via education.
Have you seen the documentary "Expelled"?
Erika, the scary thing about Peter Singer is that he is a good man. The scary thing about Peter Singer is that he believes in the sanctity of all life over the sanctitiy of human life. He believes a sick life could (not should) be sacrificed to help a healthy life. He believes that people are animals and must not believe our species to be better than other species. I disagree, vehemently, but many animal activists hold up his ideas. Singer is a vegan, gives away much of his income to good charities, and strongly believes the rich are supposed to help the poor. What Singer makes me think about is why we love our sick and disabled among us? Is our world better with the diversity of the disabled among us? Why do we sacrifice our lives to care for those who cannot and do not know we are doing it? It is because we are human with the capacity for love and care. It is because we believe in the sanctity of human life.
You are doing a great job with your daughter, and I hope all goes well. She's beautful and precious and worth everything you do.
Eff Peter Singer.
Should Singer himself ever become disabled, it would be interesting to see if he marches bravely toward the death chambers he so eagerly wishes to create for disabled.
Although Mr. Singer gives me great pause, it is what others do with his statements that is scarier. He is a complicated man and not always understood for what he is saying. I am neither his apologist nor his defender, but his statements are complex. Three of his grandparents died either on the way to, or within, Treblinka, and he writes about them. A news article worth reading. There is a line, albeit a thin one, between saying that a parent should be able to decide life and death of a disabled child, and saying that that decision should lie with the gov't or that it is not a decision, to choose death. He appears to advocate the first, it is the parents decision / right. Obviously, I disagree, I don't think it is anyone's right do decide. Just as Ashley's parents proselytize the abhorrent, Mr. Singer likewise discusses views that are, in many opinions, wrong on every level. Kelly makes some good points in her comments as to who he is.
Great post, Erika. Your voice, because of where you stand, is as important as his. Keep using it. Make a difference.
Thank you all for commenting, your thoughts definitely enhanced my post. I'm so glad that Kelly and SD brought up some great points concerning Dr. Singer. His complexity and merits are the reason why I didn't call him 'evil' (or any other attributes concerning his character), but rather 'dangerous'. I don't believe that Peter Singer is a vicious man who hates babies and disabled people and who is brewing malicious plans against them. I would even venture as far as to say that he is full of good intentions. And this is precisely why he is so dangerous. If he was a hateful crazy neo-nazi, nobody would listen to him and his views would be quickly dismissed. But he is probably the kind of person with whom you would have a coffee or a beer, or whatever you prefer, and whom people would admire and follow. I understand that he advocates non-voluntary euthanasia and infanticide in defense of 'quality of life' and to help families but it doesn't make his statements any less dangerous. To claim that a group of people don't qualify to be a "person" and therefore killing them would not be wrong at all, is extremely dangerous and to think about the ramifications of its public acceptance is beyond scary. And no matter how much good he does to help the poor and protect animals, reading his overt and covert claims about the less worth of the disabled, makes me angry.
I think Emma makes an excellent point about the quality of life and degree of disability. And if you visit her blog, or other blogs about children with Angelman syndrome, which is classified as severe disability, you will see that there is no necessary connection between the two.
Also, I thought Kelly's question about why we love our disabled and sick and why we sacrifice our lives to care for them, is a question definitely worth to ponder. I personally agree with her suggested answers. I believe that it's because we are humans, capable of unconditional love and this is one of the characteristics that set us apart from animals.
This sort of debate makes me want to blink my eyes, gaze off into the space between people and hunker down. Maybe burn some sage, and I've never burned sage, actually.
That's all.
I agree with you, Erika and Elizabeth, I'm out collecting sage right now. Save me a space at the fire (that is, if I'm welcome ...)
Well, this is a guy who would have killed his own mother when she was diagnosed with Alzheimers, thank goodness he has a sister. Ironically, a lot of disability advocates have actually become friends with him through debating with him, even though he doesn't think they should be alive. Can't figure that one out.
Well, I don't know anything about this guy, Peter Singer. I'll have to look at the links you added and check him out. But, it's a very dangerous thing to have someone say that a life can be taken. Each life is precious. No matter whether disabled or not. I do agree that Mr. Singer is a dangerous man.
I agree, a dangerous man. My family watched the documentary by Ben Stein called Expelled. He made a good argument that this type of thinking allowed to be carried to the extreme naturally ends in Holocaust. So while we despise Hitler, in a way, he was acting in perfect consistency with his beliefs. If we don't see all human life as being made in the image of God, who creates without mistake, then we can't appreciate anything other than our own standards of "good" and "not good."
I would see this man as both misguided and dangerous... he may think he has good intentions but if he believes that people are merely evolved animals, than right away he is on the wrong path and his conclusions will be wrong. I don't care how "smart" he is or what degree he has, he's dead wrong here. I guess this debate goes to the very core of humanity- who we are, and how did we get here? His rationalization is logical according to his beliefs. It paints a very sad world. A world of life without God- without a loving creator.
Hi Erika, strange how he feels about invitro babes,is this man a father? How can one decide who lives and who does not, what one individual contributes in his or her life, no matter how short or long, can impact on so many in such a positive or destructive way.
We look at Hitler and his aim for his Aryan race, and what it did to the world. How many amazing people were murdered by his ideallogy.
I think of many people who under Peter Singers logic would not be with us today. Helen Keller, for one springs to mind.
Does he feel the same about people who develop disabilities, illness like MS, and Parkinsons, amputees, those who are damaged through defending the countries we live in? Why should any baby be any less important than any other human being.
Non human animals grieve over the loss of a baby of theirs. Perhaps not in the same way we do with tears, but watch a cow whose calf dies, she licks it still.
I may be an animal, but I have a conscience and perhaps this differentiates me from other animals.
Post a Comment